Triumph of the Bigoted, Intolerant Left: Buchanan Fired

[Chaos]

OK. Here is the original:

"And although Howard Dean disparages the Republicans as the “white party,” why should Republicans be ashamed to represent the progeny of the men who founded, built, and defended America since her birth as a nation?"

Now, what is "racist " about it, excepting the Howard Dean quote, of course?

Should the progeny of the men who founded, built and defended America since her birth be ashamed of the product they forged?

No, they should not be proud of slavery, nor of the suppression of blacks continuing for a century after the descendants of "the men who built America" could finally be bothered to get serious about that "all men are created equal" crap they spout.

 

[Upchurch]

OK. Here is the original:

"And although Howard Dean disparages the Republicans as the “white party,” why should Republicans be ashamed to represent the progeny of the men who founded, built, and defended America since her birth as a nation?"

Which is, of course, different than what you said, but let's assume that was a Freudian slip.

Should the progeny of the men who founded, built and defended America since her birth be ashamed of the product they forged?

Not at all, but that is not what Buchanan is saying. Dean was disparaging the Republicans as representing white Americans with preference to other Americans who have also help built and defend America since her birth as a nation. Buchanan is saying that white Americans should get preferential representation because he, incorrectly, believes they are the only ones descended from "the men who founded, built, and defended America since her birth as a nation".

So, one, he is minimizing the contributions of minorities in the creation of the US. Two, he is suggesting that modern day white Americans (who are at least 200 years removed from the Founding Fathers he is referring to) deserve to be given preference even though they, personally, had nothing more to do with it than anyone else. Three, odds are that very few white Americans are actually the progeny of the Founding Fathers. He's just lumping them together as "European descending Americans".

 

[Ladewig]

Should the progeny of the men who founded, built and defended America since her birth be ashamed of the product they forged?

Premise A) Thomas Jefferson was a Founding Father

Premise B) Thomas Jefferson fathered a mixed-race child

Premise C) Fathering mixed-race children is white genocide.

Premise D) White genocide is something to be ashamed of

Conclusion) White America should be ashamed of at least some Founding Fathers.

You can't argue with logic, Robert Prey.

 

[Elizabeth I]

And how long do they last?

Not sure I understand your question, or what it has to do with what I said.

You said that public libraries had to wait a long time for popular books. I said that wasn't so, and cited my personal knowledge of the facts. Now you ask how long "they" (which "they"?) last.

In any case, this is a derail, so if you want to reply that will be the end of it.

 

[Travis]

I wish my library was like that. It tends to only get books other libraries throw away.

 

[Robert Prey]

Which is, of course, different than what you said, but let's assume that was a Freudian slip.


Not at all, but that is not what Buchanan is saying. Dean was disparaging the Republicans as representing white Americans with preference to other Americans who have also help built and defend America since her birth as a nation. Buchanan is saying that white Americans should get preferential representation because he, incorrectly, believes they are the only ones descended from "the men who founded, built, and defended America since her birth as a nation".

So, one, he is minimizing the contributions of minorities in the creation of the US. Two, he is suggesting that modern day white Americans (who are at least 200 years removed from the Founding Fathers he is referring to) deserve to be given preference even though they, personally, had nothing more to do with it than anyone else. Three, odds are that very few white Americans are actually the progeny of the Founding Fathers. He's just lumping them together as "European descending Americans".

A few corrections: It was mainly white Republicans who freed the slaves from their White Democrat masters. Abe Lincoln was a Republican. Blacks mainly voted Republcan until the hand-out President enslaved them once again, this time on the Welfare Plantation. No where does Pat Buchanan ask for special rights or preferences for anyone. Where do you get this junk?

 

[crimresearch]

A few corrections: It white Republicans who freed the slaves from their White Democrat masters. Abe Lincoln was a Republican. Blacks mainly voted Republcans until the hand-out President enslaved them once again, this time on the Welfare Plantation. No where does Pat Buchanan ask for special rights or preferences for anyone. Where do you get this junk?

Read the book and find out what Buchanan actually said.

 

[Robert Prey]

No, they should not be proud of slavery, nor of the suppression of blacks continuing for a century after the descendants of "the men who built America" could finally be bothered to get serious about that "all men are created equal" crap they spout.

And 600,000 Civil War Dead wasn't serious?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

So, Robert Prey, are you still unwilling even to offer any evidence that Buchanan was fired due to bigotry and intolerance?

Again, your attempts to argue that Buchanan is not racist--even if they were successful--do not constitute evidence of your claim.

 

[Chaos]

And 600,000 Civil War Dead wasn't serious?

80 years between "all men are created equal" and the abolition of slavery sure as hell wasn´t serious.
100 years between Civil War and Civil Rights sure as hell wasn´t serious.

 

[Roadtoad]

OK. Here is the original:

"And although Howard Dean disparages the Republicans as the “white party,” why should Republicans be ashamed to represent the progeny of the men who founded, built, and defended America since her birth as a nation?"

Now, what is "racist " about it, excepting the Howard Dean quote, of course?

Should the progeny of the men who founded, built and defended America since her birth be ashamed of the product they forged?

How about the fact that it's inaccurate, if not outright false. It demonstrates a willful ignorance of American History.

It ignore Benjamin Banneker, for one, as well as Crispus Attucks, and a whole host of men and women of color who contributed to the building of America.

About the only thing Pat Buchanan wants to remember is Turner's Rebellion.

 

[Roadtoad]

Robert: You still have yet to show us how Buchanan's termination was unjust.

Could someone tell me if Buchanan was an At Will employee of CNBC?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Could someone tell me if Buchanan was an At Will employee of CNBC?

I have no idea, but I would assume that if there was a contract problem someone would have mentioned it by now (either Buchanan or the network).

I'm still not even certain what Robert Prey thinks the bigotry and intolerance was directed against.

All those older, rich, white guys who hardly get a say in anything? Members of the religious right who are "blacklisted" from working in the news and infotainment industry?

 

[Roadtoad]

I have no idea, but I would assume that if there was a contract problem someone would have mentioned it by now (either Buchanan or the network).

I'm still not even certain what Robert Prey thinks the bigotry and intolerance was directed against.

All those older, rich, white guys who hardly get a say in anything? Members of the religious right who are "blacklisted" from working in the news and infotainment industry?

Well, the "blacklist" isn't working. Otherwise, Pat Robertson would have been gone a long time ago. (And he should have been.)

 

[crimresearch]

Well, the "blacklist" isn't working. Otherwise, Pat Robertson would have been gone a long time ago. (And he should have been.)

Well, don't forget that both Pats were 'blacklisted' from the Presidency.

;-}

 

[Ladewig]

How about the fact that it's inaccurate, if not outright false. It demonstrates a willful ignorance of American History.

It ignore Benjamin Banneker, for one, as well as Crispus Attucks, and a whole host of men and women of color who contributed to the building of America.

I think there were a couple of Jews as well. In Buchanan's world would 18th century Jews be worse than the blacks in North America or better?

 

[332nd]

A few corrections: It was mainly white Republicans who freed the slaves from their White Democrat masters. Abe Lincoln was a Republican. Blacks mainly voted Republcan until the hand-out President enslaved them once again, this time on the Welfare Plantation. No where does Pat Buchanan ask for special rights or preferences for anyone. Where do you get this junk?

So I was born into slavery Robert? What handouts have I taken?

 

[Upchurch]

A few corrections: It was mainly white Republicans who freed the slaves from their White Democrat masters. Abe Lincoln was a Republican. Blacks mainly voted Republcan until the hand-out President enslaved them once again, this time on the Welfare Plantation. No where does Pat Buchanan ask for special rights or preferences for anyone. Where do you get this junk?

A few updates: In the 1960s, the mainly white Republicans utilized anti-black racism and negative reaction to the civil rights movement to court the racist southern state voting block over to the Republican party, known as the Southern Strategy. It was a strategy that Buchanan admits to having been a "co-architect". It was largely successful and resulted in the a sort of polarity reversal between the two parties in terms of racism and civil rights activism.

As for Buchanan asking for special preferences for anyone, here (pdf) is Buchanan essentially asking for affirmative action to hire "ethnic Catholics" over blacks and women, based not on merit but on (white) ethnicity:

instead of sending the orders out to all our other agencies-- hire blacks and women-- the order should go out-- hire ethnic Catholics preferable [to] women, for visible posts. One example: Italian Americans, unlike blacks, have never had a Supreme Court member-- they are deeply concerned with their 'criminal' image; they do not dislike the President. Give those fellows the 'Jewish seat' or the 'black seat' on the Court when it becomes available.

Where do I get this stuff? By asking questions and then looking for the facts of the matter and the answering them with sources.

So, we see that simply being Republican does not mean sharing the values of Republicans 150 years ago, nor does it inoculate one from the possibility of being racist. Further, Buchanan has a long history of racism and showing preference for whites (and white Christians) over others. And, you failed to actually address the points in my previous post:

OK. Here is the original:

"And although Howard Dean disparages the Republicans as the “white party,” why should Republicans be ashamed to represent the progeny of the men who founded, built, and defended America since her birth as a nation?"

Which is, of course, different than what you said, but let's assume that was a Freudian slip.

Should the progeny of the men who founded, built and defended America since her birth be ashamed of the product they forged?

Not at all, but that is not what Buchanan is saying. Dean was disparaging the Republicans as representing white Americans with preference to other Americans who have also help built and defend America since her birth as a nation. Buchanan is saying that white Americans should get preferential representation because he, incorrectly, believes they are the only ones descended from "the men who founded, built, and defended America since her birth as a nation".

So, one, he is minimizing the contributions of minorities in the creation of the US. Two, he is suggesting that modern day white Americans (who are at least 200 years removed from the Founding Fathers he is referring to) deserve to be given preference even though they, personally, had nothing more to do with it than anyone else. Three, odds are that very few white Americans are actually the progeny of the Founding Fathers. He's just lumping them together as "European descending Americans".

 

[crimresearch]

A few updates: In the 1960s, the mainly white Republicans utilized anti-black racism and negative reaction to the civil rights movement to court the racist southern state voting block over to the Republican party, known as the Southern Strategy. It was a strategy that Buchanan admits to having been a "co-architect". It was largely successful and resulted in the a sort of polarity reversal between the two parties in terms of racism and civil rights activism.

As for Buchanan asking for special preferences for anyone, here (pdf) is Buchanan essentially asking for affirmative action to hire "ethnic Catholics" over blacks and women, based not on merit but on (white) ethnicity:


Where do I get this stuff? By asking questions and then looking for the facts of the matter and the answering them with sources.

So, we see that simply being Republican does not mean sharing the values of Republicans 150 years ago, nor does it inoculate one from the possibility of being racist. Further, Buchanan has a long history of racism and showing preference for whites (and white Christians) over others. And, you failed to actually address the points in my previous post:

How about Buchanan asking for special preference for himself? Like special treatment during the draft?

Tough enough to be a college jock, and to beat police officers into the hospital when arrested, but too feeble to actually serve his country.

 

[Robert Prey]

A few updates: In the 1960s, the mainly white Republicans utilized anti-black racism and negative reaction to the civil rights movement to court the racist southern state voting block over to the Republican party, known as the Southern Strategy. It was a strategy that Buchanan admits to having been a "co-architect". It was largely successful and resulted in the a sort of polarity reversal between the two parties in terms of racism and civil rights activism.

As for Buchanan asking for special preferences for anyone, here (pdf) is Buchanan essentially asking for affirmative action to hire "ethnic Catholics" over blacks and women, based not on merit but on (white) ethnicity:


Where do I get this stuff? By asking questions and then looking for the facts

Federal hires of executive posts, especially Supreme Court, since the 60's have always been preferential hires based on ethnicity. Buchanan seems to only be arguing for fairness to Catholics. This is hardly the same as affirmative action in Education or non-political hires in the private sector.